Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33196805›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Detection of Allergic Reactions Using Safety Event Reports Across Hospitals.

Jie Yang, Liqin Wang, Neelam A Phadke, Paige G Wickner, Christian M Mancini, Kimberly G Blumenthal, Li Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jie YangDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Liqin WangDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Neelam A PhadkeHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Paige G WicknerHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Christian M ManciniHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kimberly G BlumenthalHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Li ZhouDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Clinical Informatics to Advance Epidemiology and Pharmacogenetics of Serious Cutaneous Adverse Drug ReactionsR01AI150295 · NIAID · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI ZHOU, LI · 2019 to 2022
$2.8M
Improving Allergy Documentation and Clinical Decision Support in the EHRR01HS025375 · AHRQ · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI ZHOU, LI · 2018 to 2021
$1.6M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS025375NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI150295
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although critical to patient safety, health care-related allergic reactions are challenging to identify and monitor. Objective: To develop a deep learning model to identify allergic reactions in the free-text narrative of hospital safety reports and evaluate its generalizability, efficiency, productivity, and interpretability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed hospital safety reports filed between May 2004 and January 2019 at Brigham and Women's Hospital and between April 2006 and June 2018 at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Training and validating a deep learning model involved extracting safety reports using 101 expert-curated keywords from Massachusetts General Hospital (data set I). The model was then evaluated on 3 data sets: reports without keywords (data set II), reports from a different time frame (data set III), and reports from a different hospital (Brigham and Women's Hospital; data set IV). Statistical analyses were performed between March 1, 2019, and July 18, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the precision-recall curve were used on data set I. The precision at top-k was used on data sets II to IV. Results: A total of 299 028 safety reports with 172 854 patients were included. Of these patients, 86 544 were women (50.1%) and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 59.7 (43.8-71.6) years. The deep learning model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.979 (95% CI, 0.973-0.985) and an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.809 (95% CI, 0.773-0.845). The model achieved precisions at the top 100 model-identified cases of 0.930 in data set II, 0.960 in data set III, and 0.990 in data set IV. Compared with the keyword-search approach, the deep learning model reduced the number of cases for manual review by 63.8% and identified 24.2% more cases of confirmed allergic reactions. The model highlighted important words (eg, rash, hives, and Benadryl) in prediction and extended the list of expert-curated keywords through an attention layer. Conclusions and Relevance: This study showed that a deep learning model can accurately and efficiently identify allergic reactions using free-text narratives written by a variety of health care professionals. This model could be used to improve allergy care, potentially enabling real-time event surveillance and guidance for medical errors and system improvement.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDeep LearningAdultAgedBostonCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansHypersensitivityMaleMiddle AgedPatient SafetyReproducibility of ResultsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID33196805
PMCPMC7670315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.